July 23, 2014

What Exactly is IMMIGRATION REFORM?

by Steve Dana

As tens of thousands of illegal aliens cross our southern border ILLEGALLY, the frustration of Americans from multiple political points of view is growing by the day. At the same time, there is increasing finger pointing in the Congress as Senators and Representatives posture and hand wring and ultimately do nothing.

Sadly, that is what the Congress is most likely to accomplish…nothing.

Just the other day, our good friend Governor Rick Perry from Texas decided to do something and called up the National Guard to begin patrolling the Texas border with Mexico to stem the tide of illegal crossings. He can make the case that it’s a public safety issue for American citizens where the Federal Government is failing to step up.

Elected officials and American citizens alike are growing weary of the flood of citizens of other countries attempt to enter our country illegally and everyone is demanding the government do something. I don’t get the sense that what they want is to debate IMMIGRATION REFORM. I get the feeling that they want border security.

It seems that if every other country in the world can secure their border, we should be able to secure our border. I believe that if when you enter Mexico illegally, they put you in prison; we should at least reciprocate. In fact, most if not all other countries in the world enforce significantly more stringent penalties for illegal entry than the United States of America. Is that negligence or ignorance?

And, it is my understanding that we have laws in place providing for similar penalties for illegal immigration into the US.

If we can agree that sovereign countries have an obligation to secure their borders for a variety of reasons, our country should be doing it at whatever cost it takes. In the scheme of our national budget, the cost of securing our borders would be insignificant. It’s clear we don’t have the will to do it.

Part of the problem in our country stems from the fact that for many years our agriculture industry relied on foreign migrant workers, primarily from Mexico to come into the US to work but we didn’t keep track of them too well and many of them stayed. Actually, millions of them stayed.

I would say that is more than a little problem.

So the popular buzz word around the country for the past years has been IMMIGRATION REFORM. The thought being that IMMIGRATION REFORM would solve THE problem. Forgive me for being stupid, but what exactly is IMMIGRATION REFORM supposed to be? It seems the definition of IMMIGRATION REFORM should be understood by all parties so that when we use it in a public meeting we all have the same expectations.

Since I don’t know whether we can ever agree on what IMMIGRATION REFORM should be, I would opt to understand what current immigration laws say and enforce them. First to secure the border and then when that job is done begin the process of determining the fate of the millions of ILLEGAL ALIENS that have entered our country ILLEGALLY over the past thirty years. I believe we had an amnesty for illegals in 1986 when President Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act that was supposed to be coupled with securing the border, the Congress just failed to fund that part of the deal. Amnesty came. Enforcement never did. Forgive me if I’m not willing to take their word for it again.

There is no doubt that our country has been the melting pot of the world as people from every corner of the globe have already immigrated to the US through our legal portals, a fact most of us are proud of, so I’m not suggesting we shut the door, just require that foreigners who want to come, do so through legally outlined means.

Imagine what would happen if we applied the current de facto Mexican border system of immigration for all foreigners who want to come. If some in this country want to throw the doors open for as many Hispanics as can cross in the dead of night, do they feel the same way about aliens from every country? What happens to our country then?

I wonder what would happen if a drug dealer or a bank robber asked the courts to apply the same legal standard to his crime as our country does now with criminals who enter our country illegally? Remember entering Mexico or Canada or China illegally will land you in prison.

If you are convicted of a felony, you forfeit your right to vote or own a firearm. Certainly people who enter this country illegally should be treated like the criminals they are in some ways so that society can acknowledge that there are penalties for criminal behavior even if we don’t actually put them in jail. That would be my idea of an essential component to IMMIGRATION REFORM.

Posted in Political commentary | Leave a Comment »

Tags:
May 15, 2014

Mukilteo Landslide Buries Amtrak Train?

by Steve Dana

In the aftermath of the Oso/Darrington land slide there has been plenty of comment about possible litigation against Snohomish County because they knew the hill side was unstable and didn’t adequately protect the property owners below. (I doubt the County is liable.)

The Snohomish County Council is trying to decide if there are changes to the development code it can enact that might prevent catastrophic loss of life incidents in the future and I would only encourage them to look west as well as east as they do their analysis.

The topic of landslides is one I’ve contemplated in the past and even wrote about on my blog several years ago but for a different reason; railroad safety and reliability.

For those Snohomish County residents that work in King County and who ride the train to work from Everett Station to King Street Station, the landslides that routinely cover the tracks along the Everett-Mukilteo-Edmonds water front are a constant reminder of the instability of the bluff overlooking the railroad tracks.

What kind of public outcry would there be if the bluff collapsed on top of an Amtrak passenger train or a commuter train? How many times during the past three winters has the railroad been closed because of landslides? How many times have we seen television pieces done regarding property owners whose yards are sloughing off, down the hillside?

When I wrote about this topic I was focused on the fact that there is only one north/south rail line through the Puget Sound corridor. A significant slide would close the line for days and maybe even weeks. Without consideration for the potential loss of life, the economic impact would be severe.

I’ve never monitored the Puget Sound Regional Council since I don’t think they have Snohomish County interests at heart so if they’ve been promoting an alternative rail corridor north, I applaud them, but I doubt they have. As a matter of fact, I don’t think anyone in the legislature, Snohomish County government or any of the city governments have spoken to the issue.

The thing I find annoying with all these real and quasi-governmental agencies is the fact that they believe they are the only smart people in the room and if they didn’t think of it, it couldn’t have merit.

Establishing a rail corridor through east King County, east Snohomish County through Skagit and Whatcom Counties to Canada should be on someone’s radar even if the only reason is rising sea levels. There are bits and pieces of rail lines that are being considered as walking trails that could be refitted for freight and passenger rail service.

For those bright planners from PSRC on down to the counties and cities, this is a topic worth pursuing. Since there hasn’t been any loss of life in a slide event it’s not a front burner issue but will it take a fatality or two or twenty to increase its profile and be a hot topic? What if it was your husband or wife who was killed on the train when the bluff collapsed? Is there a warning on your ticked that riding the train from Seattle to Everett could cost you your life?

It’s about time that our elected officials had a little foresight and a lot less hindsight. Let’s see who can come up with a workable plan to get passenger trains off the waterfront to prevent the loss of lives and freight trains onto a rail line that is safe and reliable year around.

There is no doubt that the cost will be high but we have Capital Facilities Plans that demonstrate how a project can be completed over time in phases with funding coming from many sources.

Posted in Economic Development, Regulatory Reform | Leave a Comment »

Tags: , ,
October 13, 2012

Green Energy Costs YOUR Green

by Steve Dana

I saw another headline this morning for a failing Green Energy company backed by federal loan guarantees.  Like the now famous (and defunct) Solyndra solar panel manufacturer that soaked the Department of Energy for $500 million, Abound Solar only actually got $70 million of the $400 million in their guarantee before they went TU.

My question is this, “Are there any Green Energy manufacturing jobs that pencil out?”  The President seems to be batting a thousand with his Green Energy failures and that can’t be good for the industry.  I have to believe that there are businesses actually developing products that make sense while also meeting Green Energy standards but I’m having difficulty finding them.

In order to quiet his critics on this Green Energy problem, the President and his Department of Energy maven, Steven Chu should release a list of the successful businesses they’ve funded so the naysayers will go away.

I didn’t turn over too many rocks in my search, but Googling “Green Energy Success Stories” didn’t turn up any.  It seems that all the news is bad.

Alternative energy sources that qualify under the Green Energy guidelines are generally thought of as solar, wind and maybe geothermal with a little dabbling in tidal energy potential and ocean wave energy.

There is no doubt that the sun shines a lot and the wind blows a lot but when you compare the cost of extracting that energy on a BTU basis there is no way they can compete with conventional sources of energy.

When President Obama was a candidate in 2008 he told us about his plan and how it would affect us all.  He said “by necessity, energy costs will have to rise.”  I doubt you would have expected gasoline prices to double or triple in four years or to see the market price for electricity increase to twelve or fifteen cents per KWH when we’ve customarily paid six cents.

Most of us would be happy if a source of energy were available that heated our homes, operated our businesses and fueled our cars cheaply while meeting ever increasingly stringent government regulations but with the technology available today, that is just not possible.

As consumers, we need to decide what our priority is; affordable energy supplied by American coal, American hydro-electric, American nuclear and American oil or expensive “alternative” energy driven up by mindless government regulation.

This consumer is in favor of a “best management practices” approach.  If we agree we want to pursue all options but in order to keep prices lower to minimize financial impacts to families we favor coal, oil, nuclear and hydro as the preferred sources and apply cost/benefit analysis to regulations to see if the benefits justify the cost increase then we can move ahead sensibly.

The government regulators today give no consideration to fiscal impacts when they propose new regulation.

When I was an elected official many years ago, I proposed to my city council that along with all the normal mumbo jumbo fed to us in agenda bills there be a modest fiscal impact analysis so as we contemplated the merits of a piece of legislation we could also understand if it created a financial burden upon one party or another.  Staff was not in favor and ended up defeating my proposal because it created too much of a burden on what was said to be an already over-worked staff.

Regardless of what we are told, every piece of legislation passed by every government body carries with it a financial burden.  In the case of my proposal, the burden would be borne by city staff to the benefit of the public.  Shot down!  In cases where the burden is shifted to non-voters or numerically small impact group members, all the better since they can’t kick me out of office.  In cases where the burden ends up being just another layer of government regulation creating taxes or fees paid by everyday citizens, the message sold is that it’s for the “greater good.”  It had to be done!

Elected officials like to pass legislation but they don’t like to take responsibility for the financial impacts to their constituents.  If there is a compelling reason to pass a new law, at least determine who will be expected to pay for it and whether it’s fair for them to be hung with the bill.

The alternative energy supporters would have us believe that if we don’t do something radical right now the world will come to an end.  Level headed thinkers agree that we should be making efforts to minimize environmental impacts of existing energy sources but not at the expense of the industry.  When the government prevents the private sector from mining coal at all, the country suffers a catastrophic increase in the cost of energy and the loss of jobs.  When the government prevents the drilling for oil or building of refineries the country suffers a catastrophic increase in the cost of energy and the loss of jobs.

If the government gave you the choice between the electric power rates of 5 cents per kilowatt hour or 12 cents per kilowatt hour which one would you choose?

Or if the choice was gasoline for $2.00 per gallon or $5.00 per gallon which one would you choose?

Those are choices that have already been made for you by your elected officials and a lot more unelected bureaucrats/regulators.  They have chosen the more expensive options because someone decided it was okay for all of us to get hammered to benefit narrowly defined interest groups.

If you were given the choice of saving the spotted owl or having less expensive building materials which one would you prefer?

Alternatives always come at a cost and the government needs to take into consideration the hidden taxes they levy when they drive up the cost of commodities by implementing marginally effective government regulations.

The President and the Green Movement are so desperate for their agenda they are taxing our whole country to death to achieve it.

The reason the Green Energy companies fail is because they don’t produce a competitive product.  The demand for their product is driven by government mandate and not the fact that it makes sense to the average consumer.

Develop a fuel cell that can replace the gasoline engine in my car for the same selling price and competitive fuel rates and I’m there.  Until then, throwing government money at a loser of an idea is a loser of an idea.

Posted in Economic Development, Environmental, Political commentary | Leave a Comment »

Tags: , ,
October 10, 2012

Business & Government; Necessary Partners

by Steve Dana

There’s been a lot of cheap conversation about tax breaks for businesses in the political discourse again this year.  Over the years there’s been a lot more.

The truth is, there is a great deal of competition in attracting private sector businesses that pay family wage jobs, that don’t pollute the environment and stimulate the economy both locally and nationally because savvy elected officials understand how much successful private sector businesses contribute to the economy.

If all government officials took the approach the City of Seattle took in dealing with the Seattle Super Sonics basketball team and decided to NOT understand the needs of the business, NOT understand the competition for a franchise and worst of all, fail to understand the economic value a business like a pro basketball team brings to a community at large, where would we all be.  The team didn’t get what they needed from the city so the owner sold the team to a guy from Oklahoma City whose local governments could justify the investments necessary to reap the benefits and the team was gone along with their revenue stream.

Now a guy wants to bring another team back to Seattle and the city is taking a different approach.  If Christopher Hanson were to consider other cities as well he might get an even better deal.

Even professional basketball teams stimulate the economy to the tune of millions of dollars per year trickling down through the local economy to enhance tax revenues to the city, county and state.

Is an NBA franchise a business worth going after?  What concessions are we willing to offer a business to locate in our community?  Should government be in the business of attracting businesses?

This model applies to businesses up and down the economic spectrum, certainly more so for larger businesses.

When Boeing was contemplating their options regarding location of the 787 manufacturing facility, multiple states were thought to be in the running.  Governors of states were in a pitched battle to land the plumb jobs and tax base at stake.  How much booty would it take to get Boeing to locate in one state rather than another?  In the end, Washington State got the nod, in spite of the fact that other states offered better packages, due in large part to the existing investment Boeing has in the state.  Still Boeing squeezed the state for concessions and credits against their tax bills over a lengthy period of time.

This same process is at play every day when a business is negotiating with land owners for sites for business expansion.  Uncomfortable regulatory restrictions, mitigation fees and various taxes are often on the table when a chance to land an A-list business is in the works with local, county and state elected officials.

In spite of the fact that Democrats characterize Republicans as the handmaidens of the business community every day, Senator Maria Cantwell is campaigning hard in a television ad championing the fact that she landed a tax relief package for a business in the state of Washington.  Certainly when Senator Cantwell is campaigning she understands how the game is played.  I’m not sure how she can forget that when she badmouths the tax benefits granted to other businesses calling them loopholes.

At the end of the day, each public entity must consider the benefits that come back to them when compared to the cost of procuring those benefits.

Growing the economy and creating private sector jobs are the big things in politics today.  Well, this is what growing the economy looks like.  It’s offering incentives to businesses to locate in a community or state with the expectation that those dollars will come back to the public through enhanced sales tax revenues, property tax revenues and appreciation to other businesses through the trickle down process.  Statistics show that every job created by the Boeing Company spins off three other jobs so as the Boeing Company adjusts its payroll you can estimate the effects either up or down.

Democrats would have us believe that public sector jobs are the same as private sector jobs.  In their minds work is work, but if there aren’t sales tax revenues or enhanced property tax revenues (which only come from private sector businesses) there isn’t revenue to pay the salaries of the public workers.

As much as we need public employees like teachers, cops and fire fighters, those public entities consume public resources and produce none of the revenue needed to pay for their services, so it’s vital that we have a healthy private sector to provide that revenue stream.  If you burden the private sector too much, it withers and subsequently the revenue stream does as well.

Entrepreneurs take the risk to open a business with no guarantees based upon their estimation that there is a market for their product.  Generally they invest their own money and maybe additional funds from their families and in some cases funds from outside investors in exchange for a piece of the business.  The government doesn’t offer the local hardware store or restaurant, public funds to pay salaries and overhead until it turns a profit. (Well, generally they don’t.)

They secure a building and pay rent, they buy inventory or supplies, they hire and train their staff all on their own dime then they open their doors and hope their product or service appeals to the public enough that customers come through their doors, still on their own dime, then they pay their sales taxes, their B&O taxes, Unemployment taxes, their L&I Insurance and their payroll taxes before every taking a dollar home to support the family.

And Democrats want to demonize these guys if they aren’t enthusiastic about coughing up the more dough to pay for a boatload of benefits for their employees.

If I take all the risks, is it fair that I be vilified for making a profit?  Where does the survival of the business fall in the priority of the public sector?  (I once had an encounter with a government regulator who was clear that my survival wasn’t his concern.)  If I work for less than my employees and re-invest the proceeds of the business back into the business for five years am I ever entitled to finally enjoy the fruits of my labor without criticism from the left as a filthy capitalist?  How much profit is just enough, while another amount is too much?

Real jobs are created by private sector employers and our economy will never recover until there is an incentive for private sector investors to create those jobs.

If the jobs my business produces are good for the economy should the public offer me an incentive to locate in their jurisdiction?

The heart of the political struggle is the degree to which the public sector can even exist without a robust private sector.  There is no doubt that the private sector can survive without big government.  So what’s it going to be?

Posted in Economic Development, Political commentary | Leave a Comment »

Tags: ,
« Older Entries  |   Newer Entries »